The regular meeting of the Utah Transportation Commission, held at 4501 South 2700 West, Salt Lake City, Utah, was called to order at 1:10 p.m. by Commission Chairman Glen E. Brown. He welcomed those in attendance.

Approval of MinutesChairman Brown said he would like to hold off on approving the Emergency Executive Session minutes. He would like to have Director Warne review how those are dealt with in terms of minutes. He would like to have the statute reviewed.

Commissioner Eastman moved to approve the minutes of the December 4, 1997 and December 18, 1997 Commission meetings held in Salt Lake City. It was seconded by Commissioner Larkin and approved unanimously.

Chairman Brown asked that the next two agenda items be discussed later in the meeting.

Legacy -- West Davis Highway/I-15 North DiscussionA large map was displayed on the wall for reference purposes and Director Warne led the discussion regarding Legacy Highway. He said that the department has been working on the environmental process, which involves the collection of information in order to essentially select an alternative so the environmental impact statement process can be finished. The intention of the department was to come to the Commission today with a preferred alternative for the Legacy Highway and the West Davis portion of that highway. A number of different alternatives and alignments have been looked at, from the I-215 corner to the connection in Farmington near Lagoon. Throughout this process, public input has been gathered and feedback has been received from many groups that are interested in the alignment of the highway. What is very clear right now is that the alignment of the highway and the selection of the alignment is crucial to the future of that portion of Davis County, and to future development in those communities. This is a once in a lifetime decision where it pays to make the right decision, and to make sure the department has received the best information to make that decision. And, still being in the information gathering stage, this is not the right time to identify a preferred alignment. So, todayís proposal is that UDOT extend the work on the draft environmental impact statement, and carry through the work in the next several months the A alternative, B alternative, C alternative, and the no-build alternative. The department would then come back to the Commission sometime in the June time frame with a recommendation for a preferred alterative that best fits that part of Davis County and the transportation needs of the community there. Director Warne said the department will also remain open to an additional alternative, if that is what surfaces as part of the continuing public information process.

Chairman Brown asked Director Warne to identify some of the issues that are preventing the preferred alignment from being brought to a conclusion at this point. Director Warne mentioned natural resources, issues relative to development, and concerns about what the road represents in addition to being a transportation facility. He also mentioned that the cities would like the alignment to move further west. But because of their interest in moving the alignment further west, and because there had not been studies in any detail up to this point further west, in order to properly address it as an alternative and consider it in the environmental process, the same study and information gathering needs to be done, as was done on the other corridor alignments. So, in order to make a fair assessment and recommendation, a lot more information is needed about whatís going on further west where the cities would like the alignment. Chairman Brown asked about changing the scope of the study, moving ahead from this point in the relationship with those who are doing the work, and if additional funds would be required to move this forward. Director Warne responded that the consultant is HDR, and the department has a broad scope of work for them to prepare the environmental documents for the Legacy Highway project. This would basically fall under the realm of that scope of work. And obviously, as more work is done, it costs a little more money. That incremental cost to the Legacy Highway is rather small in the context of the overall project and also rather small considering this decision is only made once, and the right decision needs to be made. There was brief discussion on corridor preservation that followed.

Commissioner Eastman said there is every economic and utility reason to move the highway further west, but the overriding issue is the preservation of natural resources. And, the cities and counties donít want a decision made without their absolute concurrence on the alignment. He said the problem with settling now to look at three alternatives, actually four alternatives including the no build, more money will be spent, three alternatives will be studied rather than one, and additional time will be taken setting the department back a whole season in terms of developing the highway. But, it is fair to say that the western route should be looked at because it is the preferred route by those most affected by this construction project. Director Warne commented that in working with the communities, thereís no one that disagrees that the road should be built. Thereís absolute concurrence on that issue. Itís a matter of where to put the alignment to satisfy all the diverse needs, the natural resource issues, and development and economic development issues.

Commissioner Eastman moved to direct UDOT to proceed with the EIS draft study on the four alternatives, including the no-build alternative, to study the cost factor for adjustment, and to continue to gather more information so that a better decision can be made in the future. It was seconded by Commissioner Clyde and passed unanimously.

Hardship Property Acquisitions - US 89Clint Topham said at the last Commission meeting he reported that the Executive Appropriations Committee had taken action to set aside $5 million from the transportation fund to address the needs of corridor acquisition on US 89 for hardship cases. They also asked the department to find out how the Commission might address the problem. A handout was distributed to the Commission. Mr. Topham stated that at the Commissionís direction, the department has come forth with some different alternatives to discuss. One of the alternatives is that the legislature could be asked to change the appropriation to the general fund rather than from the transportation fund. Mr. Topham said he also thought it would be fair to let the legislature know what projects would likely be delayed if $5 million was taken out of the construction fund and letting them know the impacts. He then mentioned different ways of using the revolving loan fund, and said that Rep. Garn has introduced a bill that would allow the department to bond based on the money that comes in from the rental vehicle tax, the amounts of money that could be bonded, and how long it would take to pay that back from those funds. Thatís a strategy that could be looked at. There is also a combination of bonding and using part of the money as ongoing funds. Mr. Topham said itís important to get back with the legislature soon.

Commissioner Eastman said the bond issue should be looked at. Itís quick and itís cheap right now. Itís the best money that can be borrowed. If the bond issue prospect is used, then none of the construction projects are jeopardized and everything stays on schedule. Chairman Brown asked if there are any other bond considerations besides the GO that could be done. Commissioner Bodily commented that just because the bond route sounds good, it isnít easily sold to the legislature. Mr. Topham said that maybe the kind of bond shouldnít be specified and to let the professionals decide which is most advantageous for the state. There was additional discussion concerning the construction fund, possibilities of delaying the Cherry Hill interchange, and other options.

Director Warne said that when the bill to bond for the centennial transportation fund was created in the legislature last session, the department understood it in the language, to have the ability to bond against the revenue stream. It was only after the session adjourned that the language apparently didnít make it in or wasnít precise enough. The discussions leading to the close of the session would be the tool to be used here. What Rep. Garn is proposing, essentially, is what was pretty much in the works towards the end of the session. Chairman Brown stated that it is the Commissionís intent that the department convey to the Executive Appropriations Committee that the Transportation Commission is ready to report and will meet with them at their request to review the alternatives or considerations discussed today, as a result of the committeeís action.

Report on Development of Passing Lane Projects on SR-6 in Spanish Fork CanyonClint Topham said that two meetings ago, some legislators from Spanish Fork and that area addressed the Commission about US 6 in Spanish Fork Canyon. He thought that it might be beneficial to give an update on what work is underway in the canyon down there, and said four different efforts are underway. First, funding was approved for the first passing lane as part of the construction of a bridge over the White River. That project has been advertised and will be under construction next summer. Second, the Commission set aside money to do preliminary engineering for an interchange at Helper. Region 4 has been assigned that project. They have begun some initial surveying and will be doing some aerial photography. They will also be in the process of doing some design work around that interchange right away. Third, the department had a project on the program, even prior to the Centennial Fund, that will expand the road to four lanes from I-15 to the mouth of the canyon. The project is currently in the concept stage.

Mr. Topham said the last effort has to do with additional passing lanes up the canyon. He explained that a consulting firm, who has a computer program that looks at traffic volumes, grade, site distance, etc., and plots out where it would be most advantageous to build passing lanes, was hired. Based on 20 year projected traffic volumes, the firm reported back that four lanes are needed through the canyon. The department asked them to go back and do a report based on current traffic volumes. That has been done and they recommended passing lanes in nine different areas. A map was then passed out to the Commission showing the areas that were recommended. Mr. Topham related that this is still in a very preliminary stage. The consulting firm recommended Ĺ mile lengths, but the departmentís planning and safety people have told the regions that nothing less than a mile, preferably up to two miles in length, should be looked at in order to spread traffic out. This information has been sent to Region 3 and Region 4, as they share responsibility on this road. There is money set aside in the program for them to develop projects around this. General discussion ensued on this topic. The discussion then shifted to safety in Sardine Canyon, and possibilities of putting up some kind of a barrier through the canyon.

Pedestrian Safety Program and Pedestrian Overpass Prototype PresentationClint Topham said there are three things they would like to cover regarding pedestrian safety. There will be a presentation on building a prototype bridge, discussion on the enhancement program, and follow-up about specific projects. Mr. Topham turned the time over to Todd Jensen for his presentation.

Todd Jensen displayed a chart for the Commission to view. He said the structures division was given the assignment to design a bridge for 3100 South on Bangerter Highway. Realizing how much public demand there would be in the future, they were sure there would be other areas that would need pedestrian structures so they thought they should try to come up with an economical design that could be used in the future in a lot of other locations. Mr. Jensen said that when Mr. Topham approached him about the Commissionís request, he told Mr. Topham that they were already on board with the idea and had the structure under design and almost completed. Mr. Jensen then reviewed some of the issues regarding the structure. He explained the complications of meeting ADA requirements, talked about ramp issues, and discussed issues concerning the steel span in the center section of the structure. Mr. Jensen pointed out that each particular site thatís chosen for one of these structures is unique because each one has its own utility locations and right of way thatís available. He also indicated that with this design, they have standardized everything they can. The remaining design work for a given location can be accomplished within just a few days. There was general discussion that followed.

Mr. Topham brought up the second item to discuss. He said there was a six month extension on ISTEA, with $1 million that is available for enhancement projects. The department recommends that the Commission set the $1 million aside for pedestrian safety projects. Commissioner Larkin said that he hopes that at least half of the projects are in rural Utah. Itís not fair to the whole state to put it all in the Salt Lake area. Mr. Topham said he understands that traditionally, some of the money has been spent on things such as trails, restoration of historic facilities, turtle fences, and beautification, etc. But there have been more pedestrian accidents in the last few months with a lot of attention focused on those accidents. He said that the department needs to pay some attention to pedestrian safety, and this is an opportunity in the program to do that.

Mr. Topham then referred to the list of projects in each of the Commissionerís binders. He said a couple of locations have been added since the last meeting. The list includes areas not only in urban Utah, but in rural Utah. The list was divided based on whether or not they served an elementary school, a Jr. high or a middle school, a high school, college or university, or no school at all. He said staff felt that more attention should be focused on younger grades of schools than older grades of schools. And, for those proposed improvements that are listed in the second column that arenít pedestrian overpasses, those will be taken care of through the regular safety program. Mr. Topham said the department is recommending that the Commission only look at the enhancement funds for pedestrian overpasses. With the $1 million, one overpass could probably be built this year, and the design could be done on a couple of others. The discussion then focused on the local match for retrofit overpasses, and the requirement for either the school district, the city or the county. Mr. Topham said that the federal enhancement program requires a 20% local match, and the department recommends having the local government or school district put up the local match for these projects. He also recommended taking the top four, five or six, or whatever number is decided on, from the list of either elementary or Jr. high locations, or a combination of both, and sending out letters to the cities or counties letting them know that UDOT has identified the location as a possible area for an overpass, and to ask of their interest in participating.

Commissioner Griffith wondered about building a couple of the overpasses and measuring their use. She said it doesnít make sense to build them if theyíre not used. Mr. Topham said there is a demand that something be done as far as pedestrian safety is concerned. Director Warne said not knowing what ISTEA or NEXTEA is going to look like, itís not known whether the enhancement program will continue, or even if itís continued in its current form, maybe safety projects wonít even be eligible next time. By doing this now, a critical need is being addressed and the department is doing some things anticipating that the program will continue. It seems to make sense. Commissioner Larkin stated that he doesnít object particularly to the one time, but would hate to see the enhancement money funneled into this for the next three years. Itís unfair to the rest of the state and the kinds of projects that used to be done with this kind of money. The money ought to be spread around and other things looked at. Commissioner Clyde mentioned that he and Commissioner Griffith were in a meeting this morning with the travel council and theyíve got their eye on some of this enhancement money too.

Mr. Topham asked whether the Commission wants the department to notify some of those on the list regarding moving forward with a project or two, and to see about the interest of the local areas in participating in some of the projects. Chairman Brown asked what the department wanted from the Commission today. The departmentís intent was to see if the Commission was ready to identify some of the locations, and to send out information to see of the interest in participation of building an overpass.

Commissioner Eastman made a motion to direct the department to notify the local governments, according to the priorities on the list, contacting the first six elementary school locations and all of the middle school locations, to see what the interest is and who has the possibility of the local match, and measure the critical interest in the overpass so that the department can carry on with their program. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Lewis, and it passed unanimously.

Commuter Rail UpdateRandy Park spoke and said he is representing John Inglish who couldnít attend the meeting today. Mr. Park said heís from the planning department of the Utah Transit Authority, and his purpose in attending today is to give the Commission an update on commuter rail and to discuss a proposal for a commuter rail demonstration project coming up. Mr. Park distributed a handout to the Commission. He gave a brief overview of what has happened the past two years, and said phase one of the commuter rail study was completed in September 1997. It was determined that it was generally feasible to operate commuter rail. The second phase is a more detailed operations plan and should be completed by April 1998. One of the major tasks is to determine a sponsoring agency, both in terms of a demonstration as well as what the long term picture would be. The Commuter Rail Steering Committee is proposing three demonstration periods on 1998 where commuter rail would be brought to the Wasatch Front. A one day demonstration would be held as soon as February 11th or 12th. The intent would be to do it while the state legislature is still in session. The Commission would be welcome, as would the UTA board and the media, and it would just be a one day event. The other two demonstrations would be later in the year, sometime during the summer in June or July, and also in September. Discussion ensued regarding details of the demonstrations, the types of vehicles proposed, funding, and the tracks to be used. Director Warne said it would pay the Commission to avail themselves of one of the demonstrations.

Planning and ProgrammingAeronautical ProjectsBrigham City AirportBob Barrett shared some preliminary information regarding the Federal Airport Improvement Program funded for FY 1998, and said it was appropriated at $1.7 billion nationally, which was up from $1.46 billion for the previous two years and very close to that for the previous three years. The result was that the state apportionment increased from a little under $3 million to a little over $4.5 million, about a 50% increase in federal money that became available. Mr. Barrett provided further details. He also said that a couple of the projects on the agenda today are affected by what he just explained, which show a request made but proposing zero state contribution.

Mr. Barrett said the first project is for Brigham City airport. It is a modification to a grant that was done last year in the amount of $62,406.70, of which $56,807 is federal money and $2,830 is by both the state and the local airport sponsor. He said they are in the midst of a multi year land acquisition process at Brigham City so they can upgrade the airport from B-2 to C-2 status, allowing them to handle larger airplanes. The property owner made the land available for a limited time, instead of going to the open market with the property. This piece of land is being bumped to the top of the priority list. There is $1 million scheduled for land acquisition at that airport during FY 1998, and if approved, the amount will be paid for out of FY 1998 funds.

Commissioner Lewis moved to approve the project as explained. It was seconded by Commissioner Larkin and passed unanimously.

Planning and ProgrammingAeronautical ProjectsOgden-Hinckley AirportBob Barrett said this project is at the Ogden-Hinckley airport. This is one of the projects that is going to be done completely with discretionary money. The amount requested was for a considerably larger project than was on either the FAAís Capitol Improvement Program, or the departmentís Capitol Improvement Program. Referring to the information sheets in the Commissionerís binders, he said the amounts on the sheet have been approved at the federal level. There is zero money recommended for state contribution because it is discretionary.

Commissioner Lewis moved to approve the project as presented. It was seconded by Commissioner Bodily and approved unanimously.

Planning and ProgrammingAeronautical ProjectsSan Juan County -- Cal Black Memorial AirportBob Barrett explained the project. He said this is also a discretionary project. He also said that several months back he discussed with the Commission the Hallís Crossing Airport and the environmental assessment that has been required to be redone by the courts. There had been $200,000 of federal money previously programmed for that, but when it went out to bid, the cost came in higher. It was not presented to the Commission at the time the request was first received because it was asked for out of state apportionment money. It was put on hold until the FAA came forward with discretionary money to do the project. They decided they would look at not matching the discretionary funding and went out to all of the local entities that were receiving discretionary funds. They proposed the process to them and asked them to support it. San Juan County committed to supporting as much as they could, but they couldnít guarantee that they could come up with all of the local match themselves. So, it was left with $13,997 each for state and local match, with San Juan County coming up with as much of that as possible. There was continued discussion on the original situation and the supplemental EIS.

Commissioner Griffith moved to approve the project. It was seconded by Commissioner Clyde and approved unanimously.

Planning and ProgrammingAeronautical ProjectsTooele Valley AirportBob Barrett said that this project is submitted by the SLC Corporation for the Tooele Valley airport. They acquired some land for airport expansion three to four years ago, and they have come forward appropriately to ask for reimbursement from the FAA for that land. They asked for considerably more than the FAA has approved. The FAA has approved $500,000 work of federal funding, $49,810 will come from the applicant, SLC Airport Authority. Mr. Barrett said traditionally they have not asked for state matching funds, leaving those funds to be spent on other airports in the state that donít have the revenue resources that they have.

Commissioner Bodily moved to approve the project as explained. It was seconded by Commissioner Larkin and passed unanimously.

Upcoming Legislative Session DiscussionClint Topham distributed some handouts and said the department has reviewed about 400 bills so far. Those listed on the handout are ones they are concerned about or support, so far. He re-emphasized the "so far." Each bill on the handout was reviewed and discussed. H.B. 14 is on motor vehicle safety inspection. The department doesnít disagree with it, the concern is if itís done away with and the highway patrol is still funded at the same level. H.B. 8, sponsored by Rep. Adair, pertains to computers for highway patrol. The sooner law enforcement can get computers in their cars so accident records can be done electronically, the less money it will cost UDOT to do their traffic records. H.B. 22 is one of concern. It was filed last year but didnít go very far. It would put 12600 South between Redwood Road and the Bangerter Highway on the state system. H.B. 33 is also one of some concern. It says that UDOT would have 15 days to respond anytime a letter or a request from a local government is received. It singles out UDOT. It also says that the department will keep a record of all of the correspondence and requests, and that a report will be made to the Commission on a regular basis. H.B. 34 by Rep. Seitz is the Dinosaur Diamond Prehistoric Highway Designation, from Blanding to Price. It would be the fourth highway the department has designated. It would also require it to be designated that way on the state highway map. H.B. 202 is a recodification of the transportation act, making technical corrections. H.B. 218 is the Public Transit Tax Amendment. The department will probably be neutral on this one. H.B. 236 is interesting. UDOT owns about 125 acres on 6200 South. The department went to the legislature a few years ago and got permission to sell that land, along with two or three other parcels, and use the proceeds to expand the Region Two offices. Part of the land had been a dump in the past. There were questions asked about whether it could be sold and whether it needed some environmental clearances. Some environmental cleanup studies were done, and it was determined that 99 out of 125 acres were clear of everything. So, the land has been offered for sale again. This bill would give $1 million to UDOT out of general funds to do the clean up on the other 26 acres, with the thought that after the land was cleaned up, it would be given to Taylorsville City for use as a park. H.B. 237 is the Growth Impact Highway Amendments.

Mr. Topham continued with the Senate bills that have been reviewed so far. S.B. 7 by Senator Steele, is a bill to repeal the special fuel tax certificate. UDOT has fought long and hard, both on a state level and the federal level, to receive funds, even if itís a token amount, from people using special fuels such as natural gas or propane. They should still have to pay a certificate fee to help pay some of the highway uses. The Tax Commission wants this repealed because they say it costs more to mess with this than what they get back from UDOT. S.B. 20, penalties for speeding in construction zones, is one that was tried last year. That bill was for all violations. The department is going to try to get Sen. Buhler to include other violations as well as speeding in this bill. S.B. 29 was a surprise. Sen. Holmgren wants to appropriate $1 million out of the transportation fund to move the botanical garden. The department is in the process of making an offer for the property, which includes $300,00 or $400,000 to move the garden. There shouldnít be a need for this bill. The last bill on the list is S.B. 78, the master road bill, and Sen. Holmgren is preparing this one.

Commissioner Bodily asked what the department would like from the Commission as far as legislative involvement. Mr. Topham responded that at the hearings before the appropriations committee, they appreciate it if some of the Commission is there. He also said that in the past, the department has tried to make the schedules of when the hearings are available to the Commission. And if there was something of particular interest, a more special invitation was extended.

Informational ItemsMike Ritchie briefly spoke about the Special Experimental Project (SEP) No. 14 Initial Report, which is a report on the progress of the I-15 project from itís conception to award. He also mentioned a six page article that was in the Public Roads magazine on the I-15 project, and said he has left a copy for each of the Commissioners to read.

Randy Hunter said that in regards to the inquiry at the start of the meeting about the minutes for closed meetings, he made a copy of the open minutes act for each of the Commissioners. He referred to 52-4-7 (2), explaining that written minutes should be kept of all closed meetings and what should be in them. And, in the next section, 52-4-7.5 (2), it discusses that either tape recording or detailed minutes should be kept, but they are to be sealed. Brief discussion followed regarding this issue.

Next Transportation Commission MeetingsThe schedule for upcoming Commission meetings was discussed. The next Commission meeting was scheduled for Friday, February 13, 1998, in Salt Lake City at the Rampton Complex. The following dates and locations were also scheduled:

March 13, 1998 - Location TBD

April 24, 1998 - Salt Lake City

The Commission/STIP Workshop was scheduled for April 23 & 24, 1998, at the Region 2 offices. The Commission meeting will be held in the afternoon of April 24th.

The meeting adjourned at 3:47 p.m.

The following Commissioners, staff members and others were in attendance: